Damascus Razor Edge Chisels

[Nicholas Lingg]

Does anyone have or know anything about "Damascus Razor Edge" chisels? Like: when made, were made, and in what sizes.

[george wilson]

I am not familiar with that particular phrase. But,damascus would not be a good choice for any woodworking tool. All the
damascus" tools I am familiar with actually use a welded on thin tool steel bit,which does the cutting. The Damascus would have hard and soft spots in it,and very soon,when the softer steels wear,would be leaving grooves in your work.

Japanese chisels that have blades made of "figured" metals,such as old wrought iron also use a tool steel bit. Or,perhaps just a "high carbon" steel bit would be a more appropriate description of the unique steel that the Japanese tools have. A very high carbon steel.

Some damascus hunting knives actually have a damascus cutting edge,but that is o.k. for flesh cutting edges. In fact,it is a little bit beneficial because the blade starts acting like a bread knife when the softer steels(or iron) wear down along the cutting edge.

[lowell holmes]

I can't find any Damascus chisels on line, only razors.

I question if the steel would take the beating chisels might take. If used only for paring, they probably would work.

I will stick with Lee Valley, Lie Nielsen, and Narex.

[Allan Hill]

Google Tasai Damascus Pattern chisels. They are Japanese and quite expensive. I would refute that Damascus is not a good choice for an edge tool. It was used in swords for years and, when properly done, it's as durable as any steel out there. Ever watch an episode of Forged In Fire? Several bladesmiths make Damascus steel knives or swords, and they stood up very well to chopping ice, bamboo, steel cans, etc. Properly done, it's very, very strong and can get a very sharp edge.

[bridger berdel]

Google Tasai Damascus Pattern chisels. They are Japanese and quite expensive. I would refute that Damascus is not a good choice for an edge tool. It was used in swords for years and, when properly done, it's as durable as any steel out there. Ever watch an episode of Forged In Fire? Several bladesmiths make Damascus steel knives or swords, and they stood up very well to chopping ice, bamboo, steel cans, etc. Properly done, it's very, very strong and can get a very sharp edge.

What makes a good sword doesn't make a good chisel.

[george wilson]

Allan: once more your post bears considerable correction : The CUTTING EDGES of Japanese swords were solid steel,not damascus. If you look at the pictures of the Tasai chisels,the cutting edges are welded on plain high carbon steel. You can easily see the different layer. His "Damascus" looks like nickel layered Damascus. This is a truly MODERN technique used by some to bring out the figure in the steel more visibly. Some think it is gaudy. In fact,I have actually ever seen only ONE Japanese sword that was what we call Damascus. And,I do not know that it was really made in Japan,as I have seen no other. What we "call" Damascus was a European attempt to duplicate "Wootz" steel,which went way back into the era of the Crusades. It's "secret" was finally figured out in the 1970's,or early 80's. What true Wootz steel is consists of very high carbon steel in the form of a hockey puck. It was made in India,IIRC. here are different opinions on its origin. The poor blacksmiths that had to forge it had to work very hard indeed to make a sword from it. This is because they worked the high carbon puck at ONLY RED HEAT. High carbon steel at only red heat is nearly as hard as cold steel. The result was that the carbides in the steel did not melt. They were thus broken into tiny,finer than sand particles that were supported in a soft steel matrix,and thus rendered exceedingly tough,unbreakable,and capable of taking a very sharp(but uneven) edge. Their extreme sharpness,plus the microscopic "serrated" type edge,gave them remarkable cutting powers.

The Japanese did not use either system. Their approach was to laminate in one of several different ways,a layer of very high carbon steel between softer iron(or low carbon steel) layers. Rather similar to those Frost,and other brands of Swedish laminated hunting knives that you can still buy. I managed to bend one of these Swedish laminated blades at a right angle when I was a kid,and the inner,high carbon layer STILL did not crack,or break. Without being sandwiched between soft steel layers,the hard steel would have broken right in half.

The cutting edge of Japanese swords,chisels and plane blades ALL are made in basically the same way,except that the woodworking tools are hard steel,welded only on ONE side to the soft steel,or iron layer. A solid,high carbon steel layer still is doing the cutting .

Some of the expensive Japanese tools DO HAVE decorative steel,or wrought iron on the top of the chisel. They sometimes use bits of antique anchors to get the wrought iron,and acid etch it to show the "wood grain" like texture that wrought iron always has. These "fancy" layers do not affect the cutting performance of the tool AT ALL. Just the PRICE!!! The only thing that affects the performance is the quality of the welded on steel layer.

Japanese swords and tools were made this way because,for one thing, they did not know how to TEMPER the high carbon steel. So,to keep it from breaking,they laminated it. This worked out quite happily for their swords.

The Japanese used only MATCH LOCK guns even in the earlier part of the 19th. C.,because they did not know how to make a steel spring,which flint and percussion locks must have. They hammered brass into a weak spring that was sufficient to operate the long "hammer" that held the glowing piece of cord,which was called the match. It was impregnated with salt peter so it would continue to smolder. The soldier had to keep adjusting this "match" until it was all used up,or extinguished at the end of a battle.

To enter into the modern age, the Japanese had to rely upon imported Western European weapons and technology until they had enough to stand upon their own. I believe that Britain supplied their heavy ship's cannons until the 1920's(could be wrong about the date here). Crazily enough as it sounds,the Japanese did not know how to design and build their OWN aircraft engines at the outbreak of WWII !!!!!! They were copying OUR engines. NOT a good way to enter a modern war! The Japanese caught up pretty fast once they had learned Western technology though,and managed to build 18.3" cannon for their largest battleship,the Yamato,which,as I recall,they had been secretly building under enormous camouflage cover! We tried to make a gun that large,but ours blew up! Our largest were 16" guns. There were 2 sister ships,the Musashi and the Shinano. They were converted to aircraft carriers before completion,the era of the battle ship having passed. One was sunk in Tokyo harbor ON ITS MAIDEN shake down cruise! by a U.S. submarine.(That must have been horribly frustrating!!) I can't recall what happened to the other carrier. I may be corrected on some of the details here about these ships. I am,after all,a wood and metal worker,not really a military historian,though I have studied WWII quite a bit.

P.S.: I,and many others who are knife makers think that the "Forged in Fire" program should be scrapped. They put such limitations and demands upon the contestants that the GOOD smiths refuse to take part. What we are left with are a bunch of rank amateurs who have a forge in their mom's back yard. And,that really is the truth about that show. Look at how much they foul up on that program.

[Chris Hachet]

I do recall the ship sinking of the aircraft carrier, we did not know of its existence when it was sunk. The subs captains superior officers did not believe the account of the sinking at first...

Ship was not complete in its construction as an aircraft carrier IIRC when it was sunk. IIRC that was the only major sinking that particular sub or captain accomplished.

All I know from a woodworking prospective is that my current day Japanese chisels cut wood very, very well when sharp, that is enough for me.

[george wilson]

Chris,I am sure that you can see that your chisel's cutting edges are a separate piece of high carbon steel welded onto the main body of softer steel,wrought iron(or whatever).

Yes,the sub captain got lucky on THAT one!!:) All the bulkhead doors were wide open on the ship,and that made it very vulnerable indeed. They weren't expecting a U.S. sub to be in Tokyo bay!!

[Allan Hill]

George,

You are correct that Japanese swords have a laminated edge, as do their Damascus chisels. However, Damascus was not invented by the Japanese, and the swords made by the original inventors (modern day Syria) using wootz steel (from India) did not have laminated cutting edges. Modern Damascus blades are welded laminations and are NOT true to the original. The OP did not specify whether he wanted laminated or pure Damascus chisels. I offered the Tasai option, which was the first one I could find. There are others. I do agree that most of the smiths on Forged In Fire are backyard hacks. There were a few good ones, but the time constraints (and often, the awful choices of steels) makes for a less than optimal blade. Warriors were willing to pay a lot of money for a single Damascus sword. Probably not so for the woodworker, who required multiple chisels and blades of different sizes. Woodworker tend to be more pragmatic than army officers.

[Chris Hachet]

Chris,I am sure that you can see that your chisel's cutting edges are a separate piece of high carbon steel welded onto the main body of softer steel,wrought iron(or whatever).

Yes,the sub captain got lucky on THAT one!!:) All the bulkhead doors were wide open on the ship,and that made it very vulnerable indeed. They weren't expecting a U.S. sub to be in Tokyo bay!!

Very much so on both accounts!

[Mike Henderson]

Wikipedia is your friend. Here's an article on Musashi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi)(a Yamato-class battleship) and one on Shinano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano)(which started life as a Yamato-class battleship but was converted to an aircraft carrier after the disaster at Midway). Shinano was torpedoed on the high seas by an American submarine.

George has a good memory.

Mike

[george wilson]

Allan,if you will read my admittedly lengthy post,you will see that you are parroting back what I already stated. The Damascus steel was not,indeed invented by the Japanese. Invented by the Indians or Syrians. Some disagreement about that. It is correct that true Wootz steel did not have laminated cutting edges. I said that already. I also said hat modern day "Damascus" was a European invention in an attempt to make Wootz steel.

So,we seem to be in agreement.

Mike, thank you. My memory is not what it used to be,but at a month from 76 I can't complain! At least I haven't got Alzheimer's. I heard about a woman who developed it at age 35 and soon did not even recognize her husband. How awful.

Mike,not that you have insinuated that I looked anything up,but I never look up facts and write them as if I already knew them. SOME DO. I consider it cheating,and would rather be called out as wrong than do that. I ought to remember much more than I do,since I am always either reading or watching educational TV in my spare time. I have always loved learning,and enjoyed school.

[Stanley Covington]

Allan: once more your post bears considerable correction : The CUTTING EDGES of Japanese swords were solid steel,not damascus. If you look at the pictures of the Tasai chisels,the cutting edges are welded on plain high carbon steel. You can easily see the different layer. In fact,I have actually ever seen only ONE Japanese sword that was what we call Damascus. And,I do not know that it was really made in Japan,as I have seen no other. What we "call" Damascus was a European attempt to duplicate "Wootz" steel,which went way back into the era of the Crusades. It's "secret" was finally figured out in the 1970's,or early 80's. What true Wootz steel is consists of very high carbon steel in the form of a hockey puck. It was made in India,IIRC. here are different opinions on its origin. The poor blacksmiths that had to forge it had to work very hard indeed to make a sword from it. This is because they worked the high carbon puck at ONLY RED HEAT. High carbon steel at only red heat is nearly as hard as cold steel. The result was that the carbides in the steel did not melt. They were thus broken into tiny,finer than sand particles that were supported in a soft steel matrix,and thus rendered exceedingly tough,unbreakable,and capable of taking a very sharp(but uneven) edge. Their extreme sharpness,plus the microscopic "serrated" type edge,gave them remarkable cutting powers.

The Japanese did not use either system. Their approach was to laminate in one of several different ways,a layer of very high carbon steel between softer iron(or low carbon steel) layers. Rather similar to those Frost,and other brand of Swedish laminated hunting knives that you can still buy. I managed to bend one of these Swedish laminated blades at a right angle when I was a kid,and the inner,high carbon layer STILL did not crack,or break. Without being sandwiched between soft steel layers,the hard steel would have broken right in half.

The cutting edge of Japanese swords,chisels and plane blades ALL are made in basically the same way,except that the woodworking tools are hard steel,welded only on ONE side to the soft steel,or iron layer. A solid,high carbon steel layer still is doing the cutting .

Some of the expensive Japanese tools DO HAVE decorative steel,or wrought iron on the top of the chisel. They sometimes use bits of antique anchors to get the wrought iron,and acid etch it to show the "wood grain" like texture that wrought iron always has. These "fancy" layers do not affect the cutting performance of the tool AT ALL. Just the PRICE!!! The only thing that affects the performance is the quality of the welded on steel layer.

Japanese swords and tools were made this way because,for one thing, they did not know how to TEMPER the high carbon steel. So,to keep it from breaking,they laminated it. This worked out quite happily for their swords.

The Japanese used only MATCH LOCK guns even in the earlier part of the 19th. C.,because they did not know how to make a steel spring,which flint and percussion locks must have. They hammered brass into a weak spring that was sufficient to operate the long "hammer" that held the glowing piece of cord,which was called the match. It was impregnated with salt peter so it would continue to smolder. The soldier had to keep adjusting this "match" until it was all used up,or extinguished at the end of a battle.

The Japanese had to rely upon imported Western European weapons and technology until they had enough to stand upon their own. I believe that Britain supplied their heavy ship's cannons until the 1920's(could be wrong about the date here). Crazily enough as it sounds,the Japanese did not know how to design and build their OWN aircraft engines at the outbreak of WWII !!!!!! They were copying OUR engines. NOT a good way to enter a modern war! The Japanese caught up pretty fast once they had learned Western technology though,and managed to build 18.3" cannon for their largest battleship,the Yamato,which,as I recall,they had been secretly building under enormous camouflage cover! We tried to make a gun that large,but ours blew up! Our largest were 16" guns. There were 2 sister ships,the Musashi and the Shinano. They were converted to aircraft carriers before completion,the era of the battle ship having passed. One was sunk in Tokyo harbor ON ITS MAIDEN shake down cruise! by a U.S. submarine.(That must have been horribly frustrating!!) I can't recall what happened to the other carrier. I may be corrected on some of the details here about these ships.



Thanks for the insight, George. Please allow me to respectfully add some detail.

Indeed, Japanese swords were not made of damascus steel. Nor were/are they, again respectfully, made by sandwiching high carbon steel between layers of low-carbon (softer) steel/iron. They typically (but not always) had a softer mild steel or iron core with homogeneous hard high-carbon steel exposed on the cutting edge, sides, and sometimes, the top edge ("mune"). Different from the Frost or Swedish traditional laminated steel knives that indeed have soft steel sandwiching a hard steel core/cutting edge (aka "rikizai").

The temper line (hamon) you see at the edge of a Japanese sword does not represent a change in the chemical content of the blade, but a change in the hardness and crystalline structure of the steel created through differential hardening. A patterned layer/layers of mud is applied prior to heat treating causing this differential hardening. It is mysterious and beautiful looking, but any blacksmith can accomplish the same thing with practice. It is by nature primarily practical, not decorative. Well-made Japanese swords cut very well (although it doesn't really take much to make a sword cut well) without cracking or breaking. Very tough. The martial arts guys will howl their protests, but a Japanese sword (short knives and tanto not included) do not cut as nearly as well as a well-made high-carbon knife, plane blade, or chisel. But a well-made Japanese sword will keep cutting where a conventional chisel, knife, or plane blade will chip or break. This is a critical performance criteria in a long bladed weapon. I know this from direct experience.

George is, once again, correct about the purpose of Tasai's laminated steel. The hagane cutting edge is modern steel, and the softer layer of jigane is low-carbon steel, and purely decorative. This decoration does not add even a little to the tool's performance. Frankly, Tasai is a genius at making decorative tools, but the performance of his cutting edges is well-known domestically as less than ideal. Collectors like them. Professionals don't. To each his own.

Japan has very little iron ore, and steel was extremely valuable before it was first imported from England. The "folding" used to make Japanese swords you have seen in videos or read about was not an attempt to make Damascus steel, but rather a way to hammer forge small brittle clumps of porous and impure "sand iron" (satetsu) into a useable mass of decent high-carbon steel "jewel steel" (tamahagane). There is significant evidence that the folding/forging process makes the crystalline structure of the finished product tougher. It's a lot of hard work, and takes a lot of skill since satetus and tamahagane are unusually finicky. But this technique is NOT unique to Japan.

Of course, the name Damascus comes from the City in Syria of that name. No one knows how to make true damascus steel nowadays. The methodology has been lost, and modern blacksmiths are attempting to imitate the appearance, but do not succeed in replicating the performance of ancient damascus sword steel, I am told by swordsmiths. I have a modern "rifleman's" knife made in this style. It is exactly as George describes. The naturally serrated edge cuts well as a knife, but would make a horrible, nearly useless chisel.

George's fingers must have unintentionally slipped on the keyboard when he wrote that "Japanese swords and tools were made this way because,for one thing, they did not know how to TEMPER the high carbon steel. So,to keep it from breaking,they laminated it." This is obviously an error. Experts and historians agree that the best Japanese swords were made during the Kamakura period (1185~1333). Swords made after this period are not quite as good. Skills were lost. But there are still examples of extremely high-quality swords and other blacksmith work from 500 and 600 AD.

Anyone with a forge, anvil, and hammer can make an axe or a knife, but it should go without saying that you can't make a useful sword unless you are a true expert at tempering steel. If you are a woodsman and your axehead cracks, you take it back to the blacksmith that made it and angrily demand he make you a new one for free. If you are feudal warrior and your sword breaks in battle, you may well die, and may not have a chance to complain to the blacksmith that made your demonstrably defective sword. But you can bet your relatives will make sure the errant blacksmith learns firsthand about how a sword should cut human flesh. The stakes for makers of weapons for the elite have always been high, and fools did not survive. What Europe, and India had, and Japan lacked, was good steel ore. Laminating and differential hardening make a better, tougher, blade. The blacksmiths using these methods tended to live longer. It is easy for modern folks to look at the process of how Japanese swords and tools are made, and make erroneous assumptions.

I must disagree with George, again respectfully, about Japan's ability to make springs. Of course they could make springs, but unlike the more mechanized West, the demand was much lower.

The introduction of firearms into feudal Japan via the island of Tanegashima, which became the name for firearms in Japan, BTW, turned the islands upside down. Any commoner fool with a long gun could now kill a samurai wearing a fortune in armor. These were matchlocks in the Dutch and Portugese style. Lord Oda Nobunaga was the first feudal lord to use them in volume, and quickly conquered a significant portion of the islands. Big battles followed. Nobunaga was later killed by treachery at Honnoji. Hideyoshi (aka "monkey"), his servant, killed the traitor, and went on to conquer even more. When Hideyoshi died, more wars ensued, all using the same pattern matchlocks. Eventually, Tokugawa Ieyasu won all the marbles and united Japan with sword and matchlock. Ieyasu feared the warlike nature of his vassals and the defeated, but still surviving, enemies, and shut down the importation of firearms, technology, and even most books, from outside Japan. 1639~1854. Japanese were not allowed to leave the country, and foreigners, with few exceptions, were not allowed in. Christianity was brutally suppressed. Firearm development stopped entirely. Firearm ownership even by feudal lords was severely restricted on pain of death. Seriously.

Japanese craftsmen prior to this got very very good at making matchlock firearms. Smoothbore. But they did both import and make wheel locks (too expensive for general use anywhere in the world), snaphances, and flintlocks. Rifled of course. Very well made indeed. But after the Tokugawa clan began to rule, their ownership was very restricted, just as guns are in Japan today where even the police are not allowed to privately own rifles or pistols of any kind (not even BB guns) without great justification. Guns did not develop in Japan for a lack of technical ability, but rather because of an intentional and brutally oppressive military government policy intended to prevent firearm development. All this is easily verified.

Commodore Perry changed all this in 1853~1854 with his "Black Ships." Tremendous internal turmoil resulted. Japan went from a totally isolated group of islands to a modern nation in a very short period of time. That accelerated growth was not easy, and for a long time, Japan lagged badly behind Europe and America in industrialization. Not so much anymore. I suggest you carefully study the history and performance of the Japanese Zero warplane, and how it performed in comparison to British and American warplanes early in the war. Then, please, tell us about their engines.

I don't intend to be a rabid defender of everything Japan. The land and country and people had and still have serious shortcomings. All nations and all peoples have shortcomings to one degree or another. But I know quite a bit about the country after 41 years of knowing it and will correct misunderstandings when I can. Let's criticize things in context, and with as few sweeping generalizations as possible, please.

Stan

[Chris Hachet]

Wikipedia is your friend. Here's an article on Musashi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi)(a Yamato-class battleship) and one on Shinano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano)(which started life as a Yamato-class battleship but was converted to an aircraft carrier after the disaster at Midway). Shinano was torpedoed on the high seas by an American submarine.

George has a good memory.

MikeI eat lunch every day with a couple of naval history buffs, which is kind of like cheating when it comes to Japanese battleships...Would love to find photographs of the wreck of the Shinano, but not sure any exist.

[george wilson]

Stanley,with your reputation about Japanese tools and culture,I do not feel that I should get into a lengthy discussion about things Japanese. However,I must respectfully disagree with a few things you have stated,as you have respectfully disagreed with me.

It is perfectly true that the Japanese continued to use matchlocks because they did not know how to make steel springs. I am not knowledgeable about political conditions in Japan's history however. Those type things can always make for some crazy results!

I have read books with cross sectional drawings that showed quite a few methods of laminating swords. They all produced the same basic result,though: a great sword.

The Japanese Zero fighter was superior to Allied aircraft at the beginning of the war because they could out maneuver USA planes. To accomplish this,they had no armor,no self sealing tanks,and no protection for the pilot(armor behind the seat) as our planes did. This was soon countered by the Hellcat fighter and the Corsair. The Hellcat was developed later,but the Corsair was available early in the war. But,American pilots did not know how to safely land them on carriers. It was the British who developed the practice of landing in a sweeping curve so that they could see over the long nose of that plane.Once the British taught us how to land the Corsairs,they became a great backbone of American aerial war along with the Hellcat. The Japanese feared both aircraft,calling the Corsair the "whistling death". P51 Mustangs whistled too. It was in their case the way wind entered the machine gun ports on their wings. I do not know why Corsairs whistled. Perhaps for the same reason.

It is time for me to get back to something,so I'll end my reply here.

[Stanley Covington]

Stanley,with your reputation about Japanese tools and culture,I do not feel that I should get into a lengthy discussion about things Japanese. However,I must respectfully disagree with a few things you have stated,as you have respectfully disagreed with me.

It is perfectly true that the Japanese continued to use matchlocks because they did not know how to make springs.

The Japanese Zero fighter was superior to Allied aircraft at the beginning of the war because they could out maneuver USA planes. To accomplish this,they had no armor,no self sealing tanks,and no protection for the pilot(armor behind the seat) as our planes did. This was soon countered by the Hellcat fighter and the Corsair. The Hellcat was developed later,but the Corsair was available early in the war. But,American pilots did not know how to safely land them on carriers. It was the British who developed the practice of landing in a sweeping curve so that they could see over the long nose of that plane.Once the British taught us how to land the Corsairs,they became a great backbone of American aerial war along with the Hellcat. The Japanese feared both aircraft,calling the Corsair the "whistling death". P51 Mustangs whistled too. It was in their case the way wind entered the machine gun ports on their wings. I do not know why Corsairs whistled. Perhaps for the same reason.

It is time for me to get back to something,so I'll end my reply here.

Thanks , George.

I agree with you entirely about the airplane.

I disagree entirely with you about springs and matchlocks. I don't know where you got this idea, but respectfully, the historical record simply does not support it. Let's visit a museum together the next time you are in Tokyo.

Cheers.

Stan

[Allen Jordan]

The damascus tools I've forged all have a solid high carbon / tool steel backing forge-welded to make a continuous cutting edge. The damascus parts are just for decoration, but they are solid steel. So my tools function the same as any regular tool while having a distinct look.

[george wilson]

Perfectly correct procedure,Allan. Thus,in woodworking tools,the Damascus(or whatever) decorative backing metal is not doing the cutting,just as I and Stanley have said. For the purpose of CUTTING the wood,it doesn't matter about your Damascus steel at all. The "Solid steel" you refer to is useless as a wood cutting blade,if it has hard and softer layers in it. It can make a good FLESH cutting blade,though. My friend and former journeyman has been making Damascus hunting and pocket knives(even the handles of his pocket knives are sometimes Damascus). He's been doing this for about 40 + years.

Stanley,I have no desire to visit Tokyo at all. Plus,I doubt I could afford it! The museum sent several craftsmen to Japan back in the 80's,to set up and demonstrate their trades. They used up their entire food allowance in a day or 2. I think a SMALL glass of orange juice was about $5.00. Coffee was similarly high,I think. I guess you have to eat what the Japanese eat to survive in Japan. And,I hate fish!

As with most things,I read that the Japanese could not make steel springs. This was a LOOOOONG time ago. Either you read about things(I'll include TV and computers in this category) ,or find an expert to teach you first hand. Or you stumble upon it by experimentation.Those are about the only ways I can think of how you learn things. Maybe what I read was incorrect. You are the Japanese expert,so I yield to you on that.

P.S.: Allen-I got you confused with Allan Hill. Sorry.

[george wilson]

The maneuverability of the Hawker Hurricane and the Spitfire were what enabled skilled British pilots to shoot down the Messerschmidt 109(sp?) The German plane could do many things,like dive faster than either of the 2 British fighters. But,when it got into a turning fight,soon the British machine would be on its tail.

The Hurricane is unfortunately not given the status of the Spitfire,but it actually shot down more planes than did the Spitfire. It also could suffer a lot more damage and still get home. Basically,the Hurricane was a single wing development of the Hawker biplanes of the 1030's. Wooden and fabric construction aft of the cockpit. But,so many strips of wood (longerons),it was pretty hard to damage one so badly that it could not still limp home. Also,a LOT cheaper to make.

But,these things are getting miles away from what the OP wanted.

[Ray Selinger]

When it comes to WW II aircraft, glossed over, but I found interesting is the engine development. Planes tended to come after.

[Chris Hachet]

When it comes to WW II aircraft, glossed over, but I found interesting is the engine development. Planes tended to come after....and the engines were soon after WWII to be replaced with jets...had not the Brits had issues with decompression and fuselage failure, they might well have led the post WWII aircraft boon rather than Boeing.

[george wilson]

Actually,the British had done considerable experimentation with jets years before we started to. We could not fly past the sound barrier. Our aircraft,including the first experimental rocket powered planes would go out of control. The British gave us the flying tail,where the whole elevators were hinged,rather than just the usual flaps on their trailing edges They had a craft ready to try out when their government suddenly shut down their program. Why,I can't recall. Money,perhaps.

When we put the flying ail on the Bell XP1,it suddenly became controllable,and was able to exceed the speed of sound. The F-86 Saber jet in the Korean war,though not supersonic,had the flying tail,and were much more agile than the Mig 15's.

The British also gave us the magnetron,which enabled much smaller radar units to be made. We still use them in our microwave ovens. They gave us quite a few tips in code breaking as well. We owe them many things.

[William Fretwell]

At the peak of the British Empire it was 'the workshop of the world'. The sun never set on the British Empire. I remember skiing in Bulgaria as a child. The ancient chair lift towers and all machinery were clearly marked 'Made in Bolton'.

More on topic: I believe the folding of Japanese steel heated in charcoal forges enabled higher levels of carbon to literally be beaten into the steel.

[Malcolm McLeod]

.... The F-86 Saber jet in the Korean war,though not supersonic,had the flying tail,and were much more agile than the Mig 15's. ...
While we're respectfully correcting these little factual diversions, the F-86 could go supersonic - with afterburner - - in a dive - - - at higher altitudes - - - - briefly. Also, something frequently overlooked in the F-86 series's high victory ratio vs. the Mig-15 in Korea was the Saber's radar gun sight. It automatically corrected the pilot's aim point to pull 'lead' on a target. Bad Dad had a couple thousand hours with the all-weather 'D-model' strapped on his butt (D :: different radar & rockets instead of guns).

As for the cultural 'sniping' about who invented what steel, y'all need to just settle down and read "How the :cool:Scots:cool: Invented the Modern World" - by Arthur L. Herman. He mentions steel.;)

[Mike Henderson]

More on topic: I believe the folding of Japanese steel heated in charcoal forges enabled higher levels of carbon to literally be beaten into the steel.
I don't think that's correct. If you heat steel (iron with sufficient carbon content) to a high enough temperature, the carbon in the outer surface will combine with oxygen in the air and will be removed from the metal. If you bury steel in hot charcoal, sufficient to keep oxygen from the steel, and leave it there long enough, you can have carbon migrate into the surface of the metal. This is case hardening.

Long ago, our ancestors made steel by putting wrought iron, along with high carbon material, into air tight boxes and heating it for perhaps a week. This allowed the carbon to migrate into the wrought iron, but the outside of the bar was high carbon and the inside was low carbon. These bars where then heated, and folded, to make "shear steel". If it was folded twice, it was known as "double shear steel". It was important that the box that the wrought iron was placed in was airtight. If air leaked, the steel was ruined - it came out as wrought iron.

Mike

[Ray Selinger]

All that expertise in making whiskey, could be put to other uses.

[george wilson]

By definition,a supersonic aircraft has to be able to sustain supersonic flight in horizontal flight.

It is perfectly true that the advanced gun sight on the Saber jet was a great benefit to our pilots,enabling them to maintain about a 10 to 1 kill ratio over the Mig 15. The Mig 15 was so "fat" looking because it used the British type engine. The americans,and indeed the Germans near the end of WWII used a more slender design. The British engine was a huge amount more durable than the German style engine,and the later American ones. The late WWII Glouster Meteors (are there more than 1?) still flying since the end of WWII still have their original engines.

It has been said that the Soviets "borrowed" (bought?) a Rolls Royce jet engine and copied it without permission. They also copied a U.S. B-29 bomber that had to land in Soviet territory. Stalin gave his designers 3 years to make copies of it. And,they did. I can't recall which designer it was,though. Being an aircraft designer in the USSR in those days was fraught with danger. they could end up in jail,designing aircraft on cigarette papers,I have read. The price of failure to please Stalin.

[Van Huskey]

I never look up facts and write them as if I already knew them. SOME DO. I consider it cheating,

My wife and I have this discussion rather often as she feels much like you. My question is always how long between after I "learn" a fact can I recite it and it not be "cheating"? My wife doesn't call it cheating but I get no "points" for answering a question if I have recently learned it, for her it seems to be while the book is still on my nightstand or beside my chair in the den. Though I have noticed that if we win on trivia night at the bar she doesn't seem to care if I learned it right before we left home or 30 years ago.

I am currently reading a text book on motor theory so if you see me pontificating on the influence of rotor parameters on torque-speed curves any time soon you know I'll be cheating. :D

[Larry Frank]

I want to correct an earlier comment about Real Damascus steel. For many years, the technology for making it was lost. However, a number of years ago, a metallurgy professor and a blade maker got together and spent a lot of time and figured it out.

The professor was Dr. John Verhoeven and the blade makers name was Pendray. You can Google Damascus Steel and Verhoeven and find articles about their work and how they made real Damascus Steel.

[Malcolm McLeod]

By definition,a supersonic aircraft has to be able to sustain supersonic flight in horizontal flight.
....

Convince the pilot of that. Let me know how that works out for you.

[george wilson]

I don't get that statement,Malcom. If the Saber jet was already a "supersonic" aircraft,why did they continue to try developing aircraft that were supersonic,such as the Bell X1? That's how that works out for me.:) This process continued into the era of the Delta wing jet. They thought they had all the power they needed,and had done the math. But,the jet just would NOT break the sound barrier. A scientist invented what is now called the "Area Rule" in aircraft design. He narrowed down the body of the plane where the wings joined it. The jet would then go supersonic. He correctly reasoned that the air "saw" the bulk of the body + the wing as a large "lump"(the best word I can think of),that had to be pushed through the air. This large cross sectional "lump" was too much for the engine to over come. Narrowing the body decreased the sum total of the cross sectional area at that point. I remember reading about the new "wasp waisted" aircraft in "Science and Mechanics" back in the 60's.

Re "real" Damascus steel: I can';t recall at all my chain of thought at the time,but a year or 2 before I read how scientists were re creating Wootz steel,I had already done much the same thing. I bought some annealed HSS steel square bars,and was hammering them only at red heat. VERY hard work. I was hammering them down into thinner square,tapering engraving chisels. The type driven with small hammers. Called "Die Sinker's Chisels" more correctly. I still use them today.

I was over at the Gunsmith Shop letting them try out a few of my chisels. One guy was hammer engraving a groove up the tang of a file. He approached the hardened area of the file. I said to just keep going. The chisel kept on cutting when it was over 1/8" into the hardened part of the file,before the tip broke off! They were duly impressed !

My left shoulder always hurts me 24/7 from tearing out the ligaments first in the 8th. grade boxing,then,a year later digging a ditch to bury water pipe 4' deep in Alaska with a mattock.(Even today I refuse to have a mattock ! I hate the ugly things). So,I hired one of the blacksmiths to hammer me out a bunch more engraving chisels. He complained at how hard the steel was at only red heat! Imagine those poor guys hammering a hockey puck size billet of high carbon steel into a SWORD!! My steel was M33 HSS,and it did decarb some,being heated while unprotected rom the air. I just ground away some of the outer layer when finishing the chisels. They look pretty rough and ready,but they work just fine. The tool steel dies I have posted here were chiseled out with those chisels.

It was said that they air cooled(quenched) this sword by having 2 tall stones close together,with a tall,narrow gap between them,where by the venturi effect,air at fairly high speed would rush when the wind blew,in the right direction.

[Frederick Skelly]

Well. I found this in an article about the F86 at Boeing.com/history:

"Forerunner of the operational Sabre was the XF-86, first flown Oct. 1, 1947, by North American Aviation test pilot George Welch. A few months later, Welch became the first pilot to fly the plane at Mach 1 in routine flight. Although technically rated as subsonic, the Sabre was no stranger to supersonic speeds."

That surprised me, because I thought I remembered "horizontal flight" being part of it too. So I did a bit more searching. Seems like there's a long standing argument whether Mr Welch or Captain Yeager actually broke the sound barrier first. But there were lots of references to Welch getting that Sabre prototype into supersonic flight while diving. Never knew any of this before.
Fred

[Malcolm McLeod]

I don't get that statement,Malcom. ...
Find the pilot of an F-86 Saber (any variant). Talk to that pilot. Convince him (or Her) that his (or Her) aircraft was subsonic. Let me know the results of that discussion.


...why did they continue to try developing aircraft that were supersonic...
...continued into the era of the Delta wing jet.
..."Area Rule" in aircraft design.
My dad spent 20 yrs in the Air Force - primarily in B-17, B-29, F-84, F-86D, & the F-102 (area rule applied). He lived your referenced era. He'll be in my shop Sat, I'll try to convince him the Saber wasn't supersonic and let you know what he says.

My chosen path in life was to be an Aeronautical Engineer and I can still pull the books out if you like. Pres. Carter and his peace dividend (along with my father's friends still in the service at the time) convinced me I would starve to death if I persevered. Mechanical Engineer was the fallback plan, and that led to career as Control Systems Engineer (maps of this maze are available:confused:).

Interestingly, we are still 'continuing to try to develop aircraft' - - to something faster, better, smarter, safer, etc..

...We really should start another thread!;)

[Malcolm McLeod]

... Seems like there's a long standing argument whether Mr Welch or Captain Yeager actually broke the sound barrier first.

There are a few P-47 pilots who'd probably make this claim as well! Especially when a full power dive in it saved their behind. It was well known for reaching the limits of (aerodynamic) compressibility (but I'm pretty sure the adrenaline rush just added a few knots to the speedo).

The pilots were fond of saying that another aircraft might out climb them, but they could out fall anyone! Must have been a Damascus prop..??!!:D

[Nicholas Lawrence]

This thread keeps getting longer, and I keep checking it thinking I will learn something new about damascus steel, but the aircraft stuff is interesting too. Since you all made me read that, I had to go to wikipedia, and read up on the F-86, and according to wikipedia it is a "transonic aircraft" which I gather means it can reach the speed of sound, but not fully break through the shock wave that forms the "sound barrier."

The Damascus steel information is very interesting. Thanks to everyone who posted on that.

[george wilson]

Well,if you want to really keep reaching for it,even the Spitfire could just about reach the speed of sound in a power dive. But,a number of pilots wished they hadn't,because the controls got frozen,and they couldn't
get out of it.

I will happily agree that the F-86 was "Trans sonic". But,that is not the same thing as "Supersonic". Not by a long shot.

The P-38 had to be fitted with special wing "slats" to keep its controls from freezing up in high speed dives.

But,this thread is NOT ABOUT AIRCRAFT. The staff may lock it as it has reached the end of its usefulness if this offshoot keeps up.

Yes,I well recall the Jimmy Carter days with my double size house payments during his era.